D.S.Tewatia, J. - (1.) Whether a Panch or Sarpanch is entitled to an opportunity of hearing before an order is passed by the authority in question suspending him under Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by the Haryana State Legislature, is the significant question that falls for consideration in the two writ petitions Nos. 94 and 422 of 1979- Civil Writ No, 422 of 1979 was ordered to se listed along with Civil Writ No. 94 of 1979 and Civil Writ No. 94 of 1979 was admitted to Full Bench by the motion Bench as the ratio of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Suresh Chand v. Director of Panchayats, Haryana 1979 Pun LJ 116, which had held that a Panch or Sarpanch before being suspended under Section 102(1) of the Act by the authority competent to suspend him is entitled to a notice, came to be doubted in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1978 Pun LJ 403.
(2.) The Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case was considering the requirement of Section 27(1-A) of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act (25 of 1961) inserted by Haryana Act No. 22 of 1972, which along with the main provision of Section 27(1) of the said Act, is reproduced below: "27(1) If in the opinion of the Registrar a committee or any member thereof persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties Imposed on it or him by this Act or the rules or the bye laws or commits any act which is prejudicial to the interests of the Society or its members, the Registrar may after giving the committee or member as the case may be, an opportunity to state its or his objections, is any, by order in writing-- (a) order fresh election to the committee; or (ii) appoint one or more administration who need not be members of the society, to manage the affairs of the society for a period not exceeding one year specified in the order which period may,. at the discretion of the Registrar be extended from time to time, so, however, that the aggregate period does not exceed five years; (b) remove the member and get the vacancy filled up for the remaining period of the outgoing member, according to the provisions of this Act, the rules and the bye-laws. (1-A) Where the Registrar while proceeding to take action under subsection (1), is of the opinion that suspension of the committee or member during the period of proceedings is necessary in the interest of the co-operative society, he may suspend the committee or member, as the case may be, and where the committee is suspended, make such arrangement so he thinks proper for the management of the affairs of the society till the proceedings are completed: Provided if the committee or member so suspended is not removed, it or he shall be reinstated and the period of suspension shall count towards its or his term".
(3.) The abovesaid provisions were considered analogous to the old provision of Section 102(1) of the Act by the Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case (supra) and, therefore, the interpretation put on these provisions by this Court in various Single and Division Bench decisions was approved and it was held that where the suspension-order was passed under S. 27(1-A) of the Co-operative Societies Act, no opportunity of hearing in law was contemplated. In this regard, the following observations of the Full Bench in Gurcharan Singh's case would be instructive: "Apart from principle and rationale, there appears also to be a plethora of authority within, this Court on an analogous provision. Section 102(1) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act similarly vests a power of suspension of a Panch, in the Deputy Commissioner during the course of an enquiry instituted against him for his removal. That the provisions are of a similar nature appears to be manifest. In interpreting the said provisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Rajinder Singh v. The Director of Panchayats, Punjab, 1963-65 Pun LR 1085, had occasion to observe that the said section did not talk of giving any notice before passing the order of suspension and did not choose to read any principle of natural justice therein, Similar observations were made by Shamsher Bahadur, J. in Ratti Ram v. The Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, 1965-67 Pun LR 529 Koshal, J, (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in Gurdial Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1971 Pun LJ 417, similarly had an occasion to construe Section 102(1) of the Gram Panchayat Act and held that no notice or opportunity before passing an order of suspension against a Panch was required by the statute.";